16 intell groups report on Iarq

[Annie]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but when you wrote "At the same time, not willing to do what is necessary to 'win,'" I assumed you were referring to the US government (or people or Congress) not being willing to do what is necessary, which I took to mean more troops. If not a greater military presence, what were you referring to?

and you would be presuming what I didn't mean. From the get go, we've held our troops to a standard against terrorists, that was never applied before. They had to be cognizant of mosques, civilians, and other cultural norms. At the same time, they were to always be aware that they could not display any icons of their religions, could not offend by imbibing in alcohol, (unlilke their Brit/Canadian/Australian counterparts).

 

[Gunny]

I have seen nothing to support the notion that stability could be brought to the country if we just had a greater committment. Perhaps your right, but I don't see it.

What level of "will" would you support? If the present military is not adequately large to do the trick, would you re-institute the draft?

It has nothing to do with the draft. Our military is presently large enough. All we have to do is strip some of these OBE Cold War bases left behind merely to support some local foreign economy and we have more than enough.

The number of bodies is secondary to a National will to prevail. While you may not see it, the fact of the matter is, the left and MSM has done as much or more to undermine the war effort as any iraqi insurgent.

 

[ReillyT]

and you would be presuming what I didn't mean. From the get go, we've held our troops to a standard against terrorists, that was never applied before. They had to be cognizant of mosques, civilians, and other cultural norms. At the same time, they were to always be aware that they could not display any icons of their religions, could not offend by imbibing in alcohol, (unlilke their Brit/Canadian/Australian counterparts).

I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

However, I really don't see how allowing our troops in the middle of a Muslim country, where extremism is now flourishing, to let down their guard with respect to offending the local populations is likely to help us bring stability to the country.

I just don't get it. Are you really suggesting that if our troops drank alcohol in public and were less cognizant of mosques and civilians, we would be doing a whole lot better off?

 

[Annie]

I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

However, I really don't see how allowing our troops in the middle of a Muslim country, where extremism is now flourishing, to let down their guard with respect to offending the local populations is likely to help us bring stability to the country.

I just don't get it. Are you really suggesting that if our troops drank alcohol in public and were less cognizant of mosques and civilians, we would be doing a whole lot better off?

Nope. Clear enough now?

 

[ReillyT]

It has nothing to do with the draft. Our military is presently large enough. All we have to do is strip some of these OBE Cold War bases left behind merely to support some local foreign economy and we have more than enough.

The number of bodies is secondary to a National will to prevail. While you may not see it, the fact of the matter is, the left and MSM has done as much or more to undermine the war effort as any iraqi insurgent.

Everything that I have read recently has suggested that our military is stretched thin, and that in order to maintain the level of troops in Iraq that we currently have beyond April 2008, we would have to extend the assignments of soldiers there, and reduce the time that soldiers get in the US between tours.

I have no idea where this notion that the "National will" will allow us to prevail comes from. Is this some sort of powerful psychic energy that we use to defeat terrorism?

 

[ReillyT]

Nope. Clear enough now?

Sorry, I really have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't mean that sarcastically at all. I really have no idea where you're going.

 

[Annie]

Sorry, I really have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't mean that sarcastically at all. I really have no idea where you're going.

Our behavior and the behavior of our troops have zip to do with anything they are doing or complaining about. Clear enough now?

 

[ReillyT]

Our behavior and the behavior of our troops have zip to do with anything they are doing or complaining about. Clear enough now?

"They" being Congress?

What was that stuff about the directives to soldiers to be cognizant of local customs all about? Did I miss a point there?

What were you referring to when you mentioned doing what is necessary to win?

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, don't worry about it. It's not important, and I am in London where it is getting to be far too late.

 

[Annie]

"They" being Congress?

What was that stuff about the directives to soldiers to be cognizant of local customs all about? Did I miss a point there?

What were you referring to when you mentioned doing what is necessary to win?

Congress or those that think this was wrong from the get go.